Summary

The House today nearly passed the strongest measure congress has seen since whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked details of some of the NSA's top secret surveillance programs.

Following a spirited and occasionally acrimonious debate, which included a thinly veiled swipe at bill co-author congressman Justin Amash for only caring about his Facebook "likes," the House narrowly defeated the amendment to limit the NSA's bulk phone record collection powers, 205-217.

The focus on the amendment to the House's defense appropriations package intensified last evening when the White House issued a rare statement opposing it. "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process," the White House's statement read.

While the amendment, co-authored by Amash, a relatively junior Republican, and Conyers, a veteran liberal Democrat, failed to get the votes, civil libertarians are considering those 205 "yes" votes a major step in the right direction.

The roll call is here. A majority of Republicans voted against it, 94-134, while a majority of Democrats voted for it, 111-83.

Despite a concerted lobbying effort by the White House and senior intelligence figures, the attempt to rein in the NSA failed by only 12 votes. The final vote was 205 in favor and 217 against, exposing deep restiveness in Congress over the wisdom and constitutionality of the bulk surveillance on Americans less than two months after the Guardian exposed it thanks to leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden. A shift of seven votes would have changed the outcome.

Civil libertarians disappointed by the vote promised not to relent in opposing what they consider an unnecessary and unconstitutional violation of Americans' privacy.

The principal author of the effort, Michigan Republican Justin Amash, said he introduced his amendment to the annual Defense Department appropriations bill to "defend the fourth amendment, to defend the privacy of each and every American."

Citing the close margin of defeat, the ACLU described the vote as a "sea change" in how Congress views bulk surveillance.

"This is a great first step. It's the best vote we've ever had on the Patriot Act," said the ACLU's surveillance lobbyist, Michelle Richardson.

Richardson cited a pledge made during the debate by Rogers, the intelligence committee chairman, to add privacy protections on the program into the forthcoming intelligence authorization bill. "I think he has to do that now," she said. "It also puts pressure on the administration to release more information on the program, because Congress isn't buying what they're selling."

And a statement from Demand Progress, arguing that "the tide is turning:"

David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress -- which helped organize a coalition of dozens of groups to take to activism in support of the Amash anti-surveillance amendment this week -- issued this statement upon today's 205-217 vote on that amendment.

"While ultimately not successful, this vote showed that more than 200 members of Congress -- including the author of the Patriot Act -- oppose these programs. These programs barely survived after a full court lobbying campaign by the White House, the Intelligence community, and the NSA proper.

And it couldn't be more clear why these institutions acted so desperately: If Amash supporters had shifted but seven votes, we'd have won the day.

Today's vote shows that the tide is turning, that the American people, when they are aware of these programs, overwhelmingly reject them, and the expiration date on these programs is coming due."

We're trying to track down the final roll call splits, but a majority of Republicans voted against the measure while a majority of Democrats voted for it. Neither of these majorities were overwhelming, however.

Watching this rapid-fire debate, it's almost impossible to determine the party of any given speaker. Roughly, it's a liberal Democrat and far-right conservative coalition vocally in favor. But exceptions abound, and a number of far-right stars, like Michele Bachmann, oppose it.

The supporters of the amendment appeal to the program's unconstitutionality. Opponents argue that (a) metadata collection isn't intrusive at all and (b) we're at war, with terrorists.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is speaking opposition to the amendment. She claims that there's more private details collected in a public phone book than there is in the government's collection of phone records.

Here's a quote that will have those familiar with Bachmann's political career chucking at the strong, strong irony.

Congressman Mike Rogers, the House intel committee chair and the most ardent opponent of Amash-Conyers, is up now, reiterating many of his by-now familiar talking points in defense of bulk phone records collection. It is the only program that has oversight in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, it saves lives, etc.

He invokes 9/11: "Passing this amendment takes us back to September 10"

And, in perhaps a swipe to Amash's online support: "Are we so small that we can only look at our Facebook likes in this chamber?"

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgrenrefers to the alternative amendment as a "fig leaf" over the problem, arguing that it just allows the NSA to continue collecting metadata under its same interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act.

The Guardian's Ewen MacAskill, who participated in the original reporting on the Snowden disclosures, traces how opposition to the surveillance programs has steadily grown into a "revolt" among legislators who have been hearing from fed-up constituents:

Towards the end of June, opposition to the surveillance programme began to grow. Wyden and Udall were joined by 24 other senators to send a joint letter to to intelligence chiefs complaining about a secret body of laws and misleading statements by officials.

At a House judiciary hearing last week, member after member said that while they had little sympathy for Snowden, they were glad about the revelations and repeatedly challenged the NSA and justice department officials at the hearing.

The scheduled House vote brings together a potent combination of progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans. Such is the strength of feeling that they are prepared to defy not only pleas from the White House and personal appearances on the Hill by intelligence chiefs, but their own congressional leaders.

The crucial general point to understand about these claims for the efficacy of these programs is that if you have unlimited authority, then that will be what you end up using even if more limited authority would have sufficed. If we had never passed the Fourth Amendment, and the government could get “general warrants,” allowing police to search any home at will, they would never bother getting specific warrants based on probable cause. Then, every time police solved a crime through a search, they could accurately say “You see, we used a general warrant!” But that would be no argument for general warrants. The question to ask is: “Why couldn’t you have done it with a specific warrant instead?” We haven’t heard, at least publicly, any very good answers to that question when it comes to the NSA call dragnet.

Wonkblog's Andrea Peterson has interviewed Rep. John Conyers, the ranking member of the House judiciary committee, about why he wants to end the phone records collection program.

Conyers says he believes in the collection under the auspices of the Patriot Act of phone records that are relevant to national security investigations. But people suspected of no crime should not be subject to surveillance, he said:

It was shocking and disappointing that we went this far. I’m not happy about it. What we’re trying to do now is see if we can [fix it] without upsetting our need for protection and the kind of authority that we do need. We can do it without hurting national security or efforts to protect against terrorism or other acts that would be detrimental to the United States.

Various activist groups are urging voters to call their members of Congress to encourage them to vote in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment. Here's a grab from the site defundthensa.com, which allows visitors to enter their zip codes and find their representatives' phone numbers:

It might be noted that even if the Amash-Conyers amendment passes the House today (or tonight), that would not mean that the NSA phone records collection program automatically vaporizes. The legislation would first have to be taken up and passed in the Senate – and then survive a seemingly likely presidential veto.

You can watch the debate on the Amash-Conyers amendment live on C-Span here. As soon as it begins, that is.

While we wait, some incremental Edward Snowden-related news: the US state department says it would be "deeply disappointed" if Russia allows Snowden to leave Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport.

Snowden has applied for temporary asylum in Russia, and earlier Wednesday it was believed that he would finally leave the airport, where he has been staying for a month. There was a hitch with his asylum application, however, and his fate remains in limbo. Reuters reports:

"Any move that would allow Mr. Snowden to depart the airport would be deeply disappointing," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters. She said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had telephoned Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to discuss the situation. Snowden, who is wanted by the United States for revealing details of U.S. government intelligence, arrived in Russia on June 23 from Hong Kong, where he had fled to escape capture and trial in the United States on espionage charges.

"The secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning. He reiterated our belief ... that Mr. Snowden needs to be returned to the United States where he will have a fair trial," Psaki said.

NSA and the government are collecting everyone's phone records, regardless of whether the person is under suspicion," Amash said. "No probable cause, nothing, it's just a blanket collection of everyone's phone records."

The amendment limits phone records collection to people who are under investigation. Listen to the segment here.

Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general who presided over the original, illegal warrantless surveillance programs conducted by the George W. Bush administration, opposes the Amash-Conyers amendment.

He's not alone: several former Bush officials signed onto an open letter supporting the NSA programs in the run-up to today's debate. The letter reads in part:

We are convinced that both programs are vitally important to our national security. The Director of the NSA, Gen. Keith Alexander, has publicly attested that these programs have been instrumental in helping to prevent attacks on the United States and its allies, including the plot to bomb the New York City subway.

Najibullah Zazi's plot to bomb the subway was one of four plots listed by FBI deputy director Sean Joyce as being foiled by NSA surveillance, but Joyce may be giving the NSA too much credit.

In addition to Gonzales the letter was signed by former attorney general Michael Mukasey, former Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, former CIA directors Michael Hayden and Porter Goss, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

It ought to be noted that the amendment widely referred to as the Amash amendment is actually a cooperative effort between Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican, and his Democratic Michigan colleague Rep. John Conyers, Jr., the ranking member of the House judiciary committee.

The vote on the amendment provides the first test of congressional opinion about the widespread NSA surveillance revealed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported in the Guardian.

"This is the moment," said Michelle Richardson, a surveillance lobbyist for the ACLU.

Even if Amash's push to limit the NSA program fails, civil libertarian groups are preparing for a long battle, fueled by the belief that public opinion is finally tipping their way. On Thursday, a court in New York was due to hear preliminary legal arguments on a case brought by the ACLU that challenges the constitutionality of the NSA's mass collection of phone records.

It is the first court challenge since the Snowden revelations, and the ACLU believes it has a strong case because of the publication by the Guardian of a secret court order authorising the bulk collection of Verizon records, and because it is a Verizon customer.

Welcome to our live blog coverage of the showdown in Washington today over one of the NSA's most controversial surveillance programs, its bulk collection of Americans' phone records.

Congressman Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, has presented an amendment up for debate today that would end the NSA's collection of telephone metadata. So alarmed is the Obama administration that Congress may unceremoniously dispose of the intelligence program that the White House took the unusual step Tuesday night of issuing a strongly worded statement opposing the Amash amendment.

This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open or deliberative process," the statement said. "We urge the House to reject the Amash amendment and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation.

The director of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, spent four hours on Capitol Hill Tuesday in closed-door meetings Amash described to Guardian US national security editor Spencer Ackerman as a "general informational briefing." Spencer reports:

Hours after Alexander's bull sessions with legislators, two of his main congressional allies, Representatives Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House intelligence committee, also urged colleagues to vote down Amash's amendment.

While many members have legitimate questions about the NSA metadata program, including whether there are sufficient protections for Americans' civil liberties, eliminating this program altogether without careful deliberation would not reflect our duty under article 1 of the constitution to provide for the common defence," Rogers and Ruppersberger wrote in an open letter to their colleagues on Tuesday, warning Amash's effort would have "unintended consequences for the intelligence and law enforcement communities beyond the metadata program"

Amash and his allies are unswayed. The House debate on the defense authorization bill is scheduled to begin at 2pm. We'll have all the developments here.